St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-12-17
HE KNOWS HIS BUSINESS.
A Deputy Dakota Veterinarian Has His
Say.
HE is UP TO SNUFF.
he Claims the Two Watertown Lawyers
Don't Know What They Are
Talking About.

III Tic DdkOGd tultlUu VI tuC ULODE
issued Dec. 10 | notice an article from
Nicholson & Naber, in which they pre-
tend to discuss the Dakota veterinary
law and give their construction of the
law, and make various claims based
upon said construction. As the case is
referred to in their communication came
under my jurisdiction and was disposed
of as the law provides, and as the claims
they make are certainly erroneous and,
should they obtain credence with the
farmers and stockmen of the territory,
would act as an obstruction to the veteri-
nary department in the discharge of its
duty. / feel constrained to ask you to
kindly favor me with space sufficient
to give the facts in relation to the case
referred to and those portions of the
law which provide for the destruction
and now indemnity of just such cases.
Section ii of the act referred to by
Nicholson & Naber reads as follows,
viz: 1T shall be the duty of any per-
son or persons owning or having in
their possession any bovine affected
with any of the following diseases, viz:
RinderpeSt, foot and mouth disease,
pleurO-pneumOnia, anthrax, or Texas
fever, or any equine affected with glan-
derS, TO Immediately notify the veter-
mary surgeon, who shall destroy, or
cause to be destroyed the same by
burning to ashes or burying the
same, which burial shall not be
less than six feet under ground, and
shall include every part of the animal.
and the hide shall be SO cut and scarf
fed as to be useless. Any person or
persOnS who shall fail or neglect to
comply with this provision shall be
of oh A
punished, ETC., etc. Mr.. White. the
owner of the animal. had it examined,
and it was found to be affected with
CHAMBERS, and there were no doubts
about il. The animal was destroyed as
section IL provides. So much for the
destruction of the animal. Now about
the indemnity. Section II reads as fol-
lows, viz: The right to indemnity under
this act is limited to animals destroyed
by reason of the suspected existence of
some epizOotic disease. generally fatal
and incurable, such as rinderpeSt, hOOf
and mouth disease, pleurO-pneumonia,
anthrax or Texas fever, among bo-
vines and CHAMBERS among horses. Mr..
Whites mule was destroyed because he
exhibited symptoms which proved that
he was affected with CHAMBERS. and not
because his was simply suspicious
destroy. As it was typical case of
CHAMBERS there was no APP
praisers appointed, or veterinari-
ans, physicians or others called
in for consultation as there
would have been if it had been a. case
suspected by reason of its having been
exposed to disease or having shown SuS-
piciOus symptoms. Section II states
plainly that for cases actually diseased,
there is no indemnity, and as matter
of course the services of appraisers or
others are not needed. being required
and provided for only in suspected
cases and in cases that have been eX-
posed and are liable to spread the dis
ease with which they have been in con-
tact. 1t is further stated in Section IA:
The right to indemnity shall not exist.
and payment of such shall not be made
For animals that are found to be dis
because they have been eX-
posed to disease before or at
the time of their arrival in the territory,
or for animals that have been shipped
into the territory from any infectious
or quarantined locality. Here are three
classes of cases for which indemnity is
positively refused. First class. Those
that are found to be diseased. Mr..
Whites mule comes under this head and
if section II did not settle the case this
clause would do SO beyond further ar
gument. The second class. Those that
are destroyed because they have been
exposed to disease before or at the time
of their arrival in the territory, and
third class. those animals that have been
shipped into the territory from infect
ious or Quarantined locality, do not,
of course, figure in this case.
| will not occupy your valuable
space further in replying to the slurring
remarks made by Nicholson & Naber in
regard to our very inefficient veter-
mary department" The territorial vet
eritary surgeons report will show the
immense amount of work that has been
accomplished by the department at a
very moderate expense, and very much
more would have been done but for
few cases similar to the above, where
petty collecting firms have induced un-
fortunate owners of diseased stock to
accept their construction of the law and
attempt to procure indemnity for cases
that are not entitled to such. Possibly
such firms, if they make their fees out
of the transaction, are satisfied, not
caring what the owner of the stock
realizes. CHARLES E. MUM, Y. S.
WatertOWn, OAK, Dec. IA.